we make meeting times, lunch times and conference times. but what we'd rather be making are tee times. tee times are the official start of what we love to do. the time for shots we'd rather forget, and the ones we'll talk about forever. in michigan long days, relaxing weather and more than 800 pristine courses make for the perfect tee time. because being able to play all day is pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org. earning loads of points. we'll leave that there. you got a weather balloon, with points? yes i did. [ man ] points i could use for just about anything. go. ♪ keep on going in this direction. take this bridge over here. there it is! [ man ] so i used mine to get a whole new perspective. [ laughter ] [ male announcer ] earn points with the citi thankyou card

and redeem them for just about anything. visit citi.com/thankyoucards to apply. [ construction sounds ] ♪ [ watch ticking ] [ engine revs ] come in. ♪ got the coffee. that was fast. we're outta here. ♪ [ engine revs ] ♪

well the supreme court takes up same-sex marriage, it's also decision time for republicans. paul ryan or rand paul? pick your poison, gop, it's tuesday, march 26th and this is "now." i'm joy reed in for alex wagner, joining me today, senior fellow at the center on budget and policy priorities and msnbc contributor, jared bernstein and new york magazine and lee gallagher. the supreme court finished hearing arguments on the constitutionality of proposition 8, california's same-sex marriage ban. a decision which could lead to marriage rights being grantsed to same-sex couples in all 50 states. the fundamental question before the court today and tomorrow when it hears the arguments on the 1996 defense of marriage act, is whether government can deny benefits to gay people to

include the benefits conferred by marriage that are currently granted to straight people. before today's arguments, both supporters and opponents of marriage equality rallied outside the court. but the country's evolution on the issue is undeniable. polls show that attitudes have changed dramatically in the last ten years and in recent days, three democratic senators have rushed to embrace the cause. joining party elders and the vast majority of the democratic base. in contrast, only three republicans in congress would support same-sex marriage, including just one senator, rob portman. before this morning's arguments, plaintiffs in the case spoke out about their journey. >> jeff and i long to be married and start a family of our own and have the equal rights guaranteed to all americans that are in loving and committed relationships. and today marks the final chapter of a long, four-year journey toward that goal. >> in deciding whether prop 8, a 2008 ballot initiative which struck down the california

supreme court's legalization of gay marriage is constitutional, the court could choose from one of several options. it could uphold the ban, thereby telling california and 40 other states that do not currently allow same-sex marriage, that they are free to continue to do so. the court could also issue a broad ruling striking down prop 8 and making same-sex marriage legal nationwide. that latter position was argued on behalf of the plaintiff by ted olsen. the conservative super lawyer and former bush solicitor general who successfully argued 2000's landmark bush v gore case before the court. the nine-state solution would make same-sex marriage legal in california and eight other states that currently allow full civil unions while leaving the other 32 states untouched. and even narrower ruling would reinstate gay marriage in california only on the basis that the state had no right to take away a right previously granted to gay couples.

the justices could also take a pass on issuing a definitive ruling by arguing that prop 8 backers lack the legal standing. in effect ruling that they're the wrong people to have argued the case. now all eyes are fixed on the potential swing justice, anthony kennedy. who in previous decisions has shown a fondness for advancing gay rights and state's rights. this morning, kennedy's questions provided some solace to both sides. he addressed concerns that prop 8 harms the rights of the children of gay couples, but suggested it was too soon to rule unequivocally on same-sex marriage. at the conclusion of oral arguments,al gore's year 2000 lawyer, david boyce, addressed the media. >> it's a remarkable thing that happened in there was that there was no attempt to defend the ban on gay and less leeian marriage. now when we are down simply to

the question of how do you establish marriage equality. i think you can see how far we've con. >> joining us from the supreme court is cnbc's john harwood. and joining me now from los angeles, is the chairman of a log cabin republicans of california, charles moran. good morning to both of you. >> good morning. >> hi, joy. >> i want to start by asking john harwood, give us a little bit of a read on the two justices, i think most people are paying attention to and where they're going on the case. that would be justice kennedy, who in the case of lawrence v texas seemed to side with gay rights, and john roberts. what was the state of the two of their arguments today? >> well, joy, i was outside the court. i wasn't in listening to the arguments, so i have heard reports of the note that you just mentioned about anthony kennedy making the point about the children of those gay couples. and i think a lot of people have assumed that john roberts, because of his affection for

states' rights might have the inclination to let states decide this and not have states be able to take away a right that had been conferred legally in a state. but the only question is, not the outcome, we know what the outcome is going to be, ultimately. the only question is the pace of, how quickly we get there and whether the supreme court makes it legal this year. it's going to happen eventually, we can see that from the shift in politics and public opinion. >> on that point, looking at john roberts, he is somebody who is seen as a careful guardian as sort of the court's legacy. is the read on that, as you said it's going to happen eventually, do you think roberts court is the court that will make a bold statement on gay rights, or will they stand back and allowed states to make it happen? >> i would expect something narrower rather than broader. but you know, john roberts has expressed the idea that it's frustrating to him that people look at the court as partisan and predictable and that the

votes are going to fall along expected lines. certainly this would be a way for them to shatter that, that assumption and stereotype. >> all right. we want to thank cnbc's john harwood. i now want to go to charles moran. charles, as a log cabin republican. you may be in one of the most awkward sort of positions in america. in california, a member of the republican party and supporting gay rights. is your party evolving sufficiently if you look at the overall landscape of the country, and even the court on this issue? i mean give me your critique of your party's evolution on gay marriage? >> thanks so much for having me, joy. really i think the republican party has made leaps and bounds over the last few months, even. one of the biggest harbingers is the nearly 100 people, republicans from across the nation, and across different types of back grounds and professional experiences, who signed on to support marriage equality. led by ken mehlman. even this morning on the steps of the supreme court, we saw bob cable, a republican national

committee man and a former chairman of the washington, d.c. republican party, talk about how the republican party is working to take great strides. chairman raince priebus, even just this morning said we're not going to continue 20 deliberate on some of these old social issues that have continued to divide the republican party and that we're not going to use a draconian or old-testament version of this specific issue. to guide the compassion and the tolerance that the republican party needs to exhibit towards the gay and lesbian community. we are moving at a very quick pace. and being out here in california and seeing, you know the shifts that we've had here at the california republican party, you know we've got a lot of champions working at a lot of different levels in conservative movement. as we saw with rob portman, it's okay to be a republican and express your values. >> you mentioned rob portman and

ken mehlman, who came out as gay himself. and rob portman, whose son is gay and dick cheney, who has a daughter who is gay. does it frustrate you or hearten you that it seems to be republicans if they have a personal family member coming across on this issue. but those in the broad republican party, who don't have a son or a relative in their family to point to? >> i'm not going to get into the hearts and minds of the people who helped them get to where they need to be to support us. at the end of the day, dick cheney was out a lot sooner on this issue than either barack obama or hillary clinton was. and we've had a number of significant leaders who have made the conservative case. it's not for me or anybody else to judge how somebody gets around to support marriage equality. it's just the fact that they do. when you can use to voice to get into the pockets of america where we need conservative voices to speak, that's how the entire movement will move forward. not just what's being seen, you know in the large cities. but taking that argument, the

conservative case for marriage equality, to small-town america, to the small towns and the picnics and the kitchen table conversations that we most desperately need to have to get all of america moving forward with marriage equality. >> i want to bring the panel into it and i want to welcome john cassidy, the latest on the panel. so the tardy man gets the question. there is talk that the republican party needs to move for political reasons obviously towards more openness on the social issues like gay marriage. but if you look at even the evolution within the republican phase, i want to put a results of a poll that talks about the evolution of conservatives on gay marriage. in 2004, 10% of conservatives supported same-sex marriage. and now it's 33%. two-thirds do not support gay marriage even at this point when it's 57, 58% of overall americans. >> it's another issue where there's a big difference between base of the party and the

leadership. the leadership understands this. 82% of americans under the age of 30 are now in favor of marriage equality. the republicans realize that no future for a party which loses everybody under 30. so you see people like even karl rove trying to move beyond this, ken mehlman, raince priebus, the head of the rnc. but at the base we've still got the same republican party out there. and that's going to be the challenge. how do you tell the people out in arkansas, tennessee, oklahoma, that suddenly were a party in favor of gay marriage. >> isn't that the problem, the elites within the party and political people who have to win elections that evolution on this issue opens them up potentially to votes from younger americans, but the base of the party isn't evolving on this issue, are they? >> that's right. so the elites recognize they need to change and when the republicans issue the report describing where the party needed to go, gay marriage was prominently mentioned. that and immigration were the two issues where they took a position that we need to change that position. but the other thing is that the elites never cared very much

about gay marriage or social issues. although the republican elites are all about the money. the base is where the intensity on the social issues are. >> so the supreme court, which is a political entity, lee, we can pretend that the court is above politics, but at the end of the day, the members of the court are chosen in a very partisan manner. there is something of an ideological litmus test to get them there. you wind up with a court that reflects our polarized politics. is it the court that wants to be ahead of the republican opinion within the republican party or the conservatives? >> i think john harwood raised that point. we'll see if they shatter our overall expectation of what the court is it will be interesting to see what happens. in general, this is an issue where the public and the private sector is leading the politicians, whether they're the elitist or the base and it's not too different from gun control. if you look at the numbers for universal back ground checks, 8 0%, 90%. the it's just like what john

said the younger generation favoring marriage equality. we are going to get there, it will be a thorny process. the speed and the scope with which this issue has moved has been stunning. when you consider how long it's taken other movements to gather similar steam. it's got some serious momentum. >> joy, can i jump in on one area? i don't want to overlook and neglect the small towns in america. we talk about the elites versus the party members, that's what we're coming back to, having those conversations and sometimes it takes somebody in a small town having the courage to stand up and say, i'm your gay and i'm your neighbor, or i'm your son or uncle or aunt. those are the types of conversations that start to change the hearts and minds, regardless if you're in a big city or small town. and that's not party elite. that's being able to help people identify what it's truly like to be an equal. to be a member of your community and just to be truly who you are. and that authenticity is what people in small towns and the

quote-unquote base want to see. they want to see that you're there with hem on gun rights and taxation and they want to see that you're there on a strong national defense. and none of those issues have anything to do with your sexual orientation. and when you can make that argument at the base and the ground floor, and what we as log cabin republicans are doing. it's not an issue of elites. i don't want to throw the millions of republicans across the nation who are small-town conservatives, yet support the congruent issue of marriage equality as it relates to the other household issues that are out there. we're getting there and the party is getting there. and it's the grassroots, too. >> you know what i think is going on? just kind of taking comments that charles and john and lee have all made -- there's just a lot of different stakeholders moving at a lot of different tempos. some people and i would say it's certainly the majority of younger people, are there already, view this as an equality, anti-discrimination

issue. think that kind of thinking is despositive and will be decisive as harwood said. but charles is putting a very right sheen on this and john has a point, about the disconnect between the broader, the elites and some folks out in the dice pora, as it were.diaspora, as i. >> and for the republican party, a lot of people are moving because of a personal, familial issue, which even john roberts happens to have. it's important to remember that while gay marriage won on the ballot box in four states in 2012, which is a sea change from 2004 w4e it was the sort of leading indicator of where bush was going to win statewide. things are obviously moving at the state level. but i don't know. >> there's personal issues as you said and then there's political issues. i mean immigration is obviously much more driven by politics, i think than gay marriage. >> right. >> but basically the republicans are looking in the mirror and saying if we don't want to be

prehistoric, we got to start thinking differently. >> i want to thank the panel, charles moran of the log cabin republicans of california. coming up, president obama goes all in on immigration reform. while he's proven that he can get the people on his side, the jury is still out on congress. we'll get grassroots when telemundo joins us ahead. i'm a conservative investor. but that doesn't mean i don't want to make money. i love making money. i try to be smart with my investments. i also try to keep my costs down. what's your plan? ishares. low cost and tax efficient. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.

risk includes possible loss of principal.

whibl congress works towards a bipartisan solution towards immigration reform, republicans try to find their footing on the issue, specifically by dancing

around the p word, as rand paul did last week. >> this whole immigration debate gets into these check the box and new pathway to citizen, check the box, amnesty or no amnesty. i think that's trapping us into something that makes the debate too simple. i'm not offering a new pathway to citizenship. i'm simply saying you can get a work visa and you can get in the normal line. i'm not creating a new line for citizenship. i'm just saying you can get in the current line that exists. >> we'll discuss the gop's immigration softshoe when jose diaz balart joins us, next. [ male announcer ] this is bob,

a regular guy with an irregular heartbeat. the usual, bob? not today. [ male announcer ] bob has afib: atrial fibrillation not caused by a heart valve problem, a condition that puts him at greater risk for a stroke. [ gps ] turn left. i don't think so. [ male announcer ] for years, bob took warfarin, and made a monthly trip to the clinic to get his blood tested. but not anymore. bob's doctor recommended a different option: once-a-day xarelto®. xarelto® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with afib not caused by a heart valve problem, that doesn't require routine blood monitoring. like warfarin, xarelto® is proven effective to reduce the risk of an afib-related stroke. there is limited data on how these drugs compare when warfarin is well managed. no routine blood monitoring means bob can spend his extra time however he likes.

new zealand! xarelto® is just one pill a day, taken with the evening meal. and with no dietary restrictions, bob can eat the healthy foods he likes. do not stop taking xarelto® rivaroxaban without talking to the doctor who prescribes it for you. stopping may increase your risk of having a stroke. get medical help right away if you develop any signs or symptoms of bleeding, like unusual bruising or tingling. you may have a higher risk of bleeding if you take xarelto® with aspirin products, nsaids or blood thinners. talk to your doctor before taking xarelto® if you currently have abnormal bleeding. xarelto® can cause bleeding, which can be serious, and rarely may lead to death. you are likely to bruise more easily on xarelto®, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. tell your doctors you are taking xarelto® before any planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver or bleeding problems. ready to change your routine? ask your doctor about once-a-day xarelto®.

for more information including cost support options, call 1-888-xarelto or visit goxarelto.com. [ clang ] my house is where plants came to die. but, it turns out all i was missing was miracle-gro potting mix. it's got what a plant needs like miracle-gro plant food that feeds them for up to six months. you get bigger, healthier plants, guaranteed. who's got two green thumbs thanks to miracle-gro? ah, this gal. boom! with the right soil, everyone grows with miracle-gro. we have known for years that our immigration system is broken and after avoiding the problem for years, the time has come to fix it once and for all. the time has come for a comprehensive sensible immigration reform.

we've all proposed solutions and we got a lot of white papers and studies and we just got at this point to work out the political courage to do what's required to be done. so i expect a bill to be put forward. i expect a debate to begin next month. i want to sign the bill into law as soon as possible. >> yesterday, as members of congress enjoyed their spring breaks, president obama added another item to their homework for april, comprehensive immigration reform. speaking at a ceremony to swear in 28 new citizens at the white house, the president called on congress to finish the job on immigration. over the past few months, bipartisan efforts in the senate and the house have made progress on legislation. but congress has yet to release an actual bill. the senate's gang of 8 is expected to have a bill by the end of april and speaker boehner said the house will there deuce its own bill the next few weeks. in theory, members of congress might be able to muster the kind of political courage the

president is demanding. it looks like the white house isn't banking on it. reports say the president's new grassroots advocacy group, organizing for action, plans to jump into the debate with an online effort. telling the personal stories of 7,000 immigrants. america hasn't seen a comprehensive immigration bill signed into law in 27 years. now might be just the time. recent polling shows that 63% of americans now support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants living in the u.s. illegally. and the path to citizenship is popular, regardless of party, with 71% of democrats, 64% of independents and 53% of republicans supporting it. the road ahead to immigration may not be easy. like other issues on the president's second-term agenda. it's what the people want. joining us is jose diaz balard a

host on telemundo. jose there's a straightforward case for republican support of immigration reform. and it's this. republicans lost big in 2012 in large part because mitt romney was not able to get out of the 20s with hispanic voters, a straightforward case for doing it. is there a case for not doing it? ha is the argument on the other side you're hearing from republicans? >> you know what, by and large i think the majority of the republican party is realizing that this is an important issue, if they want to have a shot at the presidency in the next 100 or 200 years. and i think that there will always be those that say under no circumstances should you have anything that would be considered am nestic. or that these people who have been here, many of them have children and grandchildren here, will never have the right to search for their path towards citizenship. when we talk about the conservative members and we had

senator paul on just a little while ago. when they talk about they should get in the back of the line and like everybody else, there are some countries as far as quotes are concerned that if you legally apply for residency in this country, you have to wait 115 years. what they're saying is essentially let's just not deal with this in a serious manner. let's just keep the status quo like it is. and most of the people that will be put in the back of the line as the line currently exists will have to wait 125 years. and by that time, they probably won't be around and neither will i to deal with the consequences, that's really not very smart poll politics and that's certainly not taking care of the people that are here contributing to this economy. many for decades. >> well, you know i want to put up some numbers from a latino decision poll ha was released last month it shows that 43% of latino obama supporters, people who voted for barack obama said they'd be more likely to vote republican if the party plays a major role on immigration reform. that stat is out there. but the argument that i hear

from some conservatives is, look, ronald reagan did amnesty. straight-up amnesty, only got 37% of the hispanic vote. the democratic advantage was 24 percentage points. george w. bush known to be for path to citizenship, comprehensive immigration reform, at top end he got 40% of the hispanic vote. there are republicans who are saying there's no payoff for us at the ballot box if you legalize 11 million people, many of whom are hispanic, the majority of whom are hispanic, they're going to vote democratic, why should we do this? >> that's fascinating, i bet if we had the former presidential candidate for the republican party on and you asked the ex-governor if he would have liked to have gotten 44% of the hispanic vote, i think they would have been happy with 44% of the latino vote instead of the low 20s. every month 50,000 latinos born

in the united states turn 18 years of age. every single month. i have to say, joy, that if you look at the efforts under way in the senate and the house, republicans are taking the lead on many issues to try to get some bipartisan agreement done. and we see it, i had senator menendez on on my show "en foce" he said a lot of the barriers, huge issue force republicans, have already been dealt with. in the house i'm hearing the same thing. let's see what happens on the 8th of april when the senators return from their break and let's see what happens after the the break in the house and see how quickly members can put something serious that would have bipartisan support, on the, on the table and have a vote on it. >> well i want to bring the panel in. lee, one of the things that has happened is do you have a consensus forming within the part of the republican base that's about business. the business community labor on the democratic side, there's a consensus that this needs to get done, right?

is that helping to crystallize support within the republican party? >> it is, yes. one aspect, and a group that isn't much discussed, is a group that comes over to the silicon valley, relies on engineers coming from other countries to power that market. we have a jobs crisis in every other place in the country. in sill kon vicon valley there' shortage ever engineers and the caps on h 1 b visas is lower than it was in 2000. that's why you see people like steve case and mark zuckerberg who has avoided stepping into the political discussion until now has started an advocacy group for this issue. so it's huge ramifiations for business and immigration leads to population which is good for all of us. >> and yet, marco rubio, which is supposedly the savior of the republican party, in part because he's able to talk about immigration, when he an opportunity to say it in front of the base at cpac, he left it out of his speech. ted cruz, another potentialal

door-opener with conservative voters saying the president is using this as a wedge to beat up republicans. if republicans can't say they're for immigration reform in front of their own base, where is this going? >> i think it's a great question, i think there's a big difference as far as positions on immigration reform. between ted cruz and between marco rubio. marco rubio is part of the gang of eight. and they've been really working, i'm going to tell you -- if what we're hearing is put forward, after the 8th of april and both sides agree to it they're each going to have to deal with their own base being pretty upset with them. i think that that's a big difference between marco rubio, who is actually willing to talk and negotiate in the gang of eight and the other senator, who quite frankly hasn't really appeared in anything dealing with immigration reform on a serious note. it is going to be very interesting. and i just want to say, joy, that the president didn't just yesterday talk about immigration reform. after the 6th of november, he

has been consistent on his support for bipartisan work both in the senate and in the house. to get this done. and he has actually stepped back at sometimes when he has wanted to speak out even more and hasn't done so because those members in the democratic caucus working on immigration reform in both the senate and the house have asked him to step back and let them do their work. i, maybe i'm in the minority. but i am optimistic about bipartisan efforts on this issue, coming in the near future in both the house and in the senate. >> i want to thank you telemundo's jose diaz-balart. it will be different because the smart people in the republican party say they have to do it to worries me when somebody like john mccain who used to say he was for immigration reform, when he was up for re-election, said build the dang fence. >> he's up again. i think you're one behind here. part of it is the psychological barrier for republicans of just

making a deal with obama. that is an obnoxious prospect to many republicans. what i see them doing here is an interesting, almost psychological device. they're saying goem wants to kill the bill so let's stick it to obama by passing a bill and making him sign it. i've seen this argument made and that's the way they're trying to sell it. >> i think the numbers game is doctoring. sometimes history, the kind of statistics how you're saying this might not help republicans enough. is not a good guide. the base that's very alienated by this is essentially shrinking. where as jose pointed out, the folks you're going to reach with comprehensive reform is growing quickly. >> if you look at the numbers, whites are no longer the births in this country. there's a generation of people for whom the majority is going to be the minority. this is not sustainable the way it is. i think that's why you see people on the tale party side coming in and reversing, saying

things in the 2012 campaign would have been outrageous. >> if only the republican base will listen to us in the lame-stream media. coming up if there's one thing republicans hate is spending and big deficits, except not too long ago the party mostly turned its back on the balanced budgets and the culprit? ronald reagan. we'll take a stroll down memory lane, just ahead. [ coughs ] [ angry gibberish ] i took something for my sinuses, but i still have this cough. [ male announcer ] a lot of sinus products don't treat cough. they don't? [ male announcer ] nope, but alka seltzer plus severe sinus does it treats your worst sinus symptoms, plus that annoying cough. [ breathes deeply ] ♪ oh, what a relief it is [ angry gibberish ]

but first you've got to get him to say, "hello." new crest 3d white arctic fresh toothpaste. use it with these 3d white products, and whiten your teeth in just 2 days. new crest 3d white toothpaste. life opens up when you do.

new crest 3d white toothpaste. if we don't double the number of kids graduating from high school in the next 8 years, our country won't be able to compete globally. what uncle sam needs now are more good teachers. are you up for it? you can help kids graduate. the more you know.

the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf., and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. buried in last weekend's wild vote-a-rama, the senate shot down rand paul's pie in the sky vision for fiscal responsibility. but the republicans who voted for the rand budget aren't the ubl tea party fringe, we'll

discuss grand old priorities, next. for over 75 years people have saved money with...ohhh... ...with geico... ohhh...sorry! director's voice: here we go. from the top. and action for over 75 years people have saved money with gecko so.... director's voice: cut it! ...what...what did i say? gecko? i said gecko? aw... for over 75 year...(laughs. but still trying to keep it contained) director's voice: keep it together. i'm good. i'm good. for over 75...(uncontrollable lahtuger). what are you doing there? stop making me laugh. vo: geico. saving people money for over seventy-five years. gecko: don't look at me. don't look at me.

we owe the american people a balanced budget. >> republicans want to balance the budget. >> i would say a balanced budget is going to help grow our economy. >> a balanced budget means more jobs. it means more opportunities. >> balancing the budget is necessary for a healthy economy. >> the republican party has adopted a singular economic message, you'll hear a lot more of it over the next few weeks. a balanced budget will save the economy. the rallying behind the paul ryan plan. a budget that slashes spending by $4.6 trillion, 68% of which comes from programs for the poor. and for working-class americans. ryan's budget promises to balance the books in just ten years. roughly three times as fast as the budget he released a year ago and which was adopted by the

romney campaign. but jonathan chait repinds us that paul ryan didn't always buy into this anti-deficit message. in fact he argued for quite the opposite. chait writes, he began as a disciple of jack kemp. ryan was a leader of the wing of republicans demanding that bush increase the deficit even more. he castigated bush's tax cuts as far too small. that's right. ryan once believed that his party didn't take on enough debt. ryan said during bush's first term quote, they fear increases in the debt and they were overlooking issues of growth, opportunity and free markets. in fact, republicans didn't used to be the party of deficit cutting at all. this graph shows the federal debt as a percentage of gdp. you can see that from 1960, until 1980, both parties worked to keep the debt down. but that changed when presidents reagan and bush came along and

the debt ballooned. president clinton began reigning in the debt before president george w. bush came along and exploded it once again. paul o'neill, the treasury secretary under bush 43 once wrote that dick cheney told him, you know, paul, reagan proved deficits don't matter. now the party has decided cutting the federal debt is a winning method, despite polls showing their aproefl rating tanking and bucking the legacy of ronald reagan. consider rand paul's vision for america. rand's budget proposes balancing the budget in five years, instead of ten, by closing four federal agencies, including the department of education, privatizing medicare and hiking the social security retirement age. the gop is indeed at a crossroads, will it be the party of reagan, ryan or rand. and i've got to turn first to jonathan chait, who has written several columns, in which you explode this ridiculous and maddening myth about paul ryan

being a deficit hawk this guy has not been a deficit hawk. >> he's not he was the leader of the wing of ultrasupply siders. george w. bush was quite a supply sider. he was arguing that deficits don't matter. and paul ryan was to his right saying no, the tax cuts are too small, bush wanted to privatize social security in 2005. and paul ryan was the leader with this privatization plan, that added $1 trillion in debt, so much debt that the bush administration said this is irresponsible. >> he voted for the bush tax cuts. >> he voted for the wars, everything that exploded the deficit. how did he gain credibility as the deficit cutter? >> it's quite a con. it's hard to think of a word for what he's done other than a con. now there's always the case that when democrats have the white house, republicans start framing their ideology in terms of deficits. and stop framing their ideology in terms of deficits when they actually have power. >> and jared bernstein i have to turn to you. please for once and for all,

explode this myth ma somehow just reducing the deficit in and of itself somehow produces jobs, where did the link come from? and explain to us why it is not true? >> well, it's not true because the historical record shows it not to be true. to be a little bit more fair to the supply-siders themselves and even ryan, it's not that they were saying all of these cuts will lead to a large budget deficit. they were saying all the cuts will lead to enough growth in economy and jobs that we'll collect enough revenue to offset the cuts. here's the where the history comes in to answer your question, very simply there's absolutely no evidence linking deficits going up or going down to job growth or even to a gdp growth. to the contrary, the fiscal debt or the deficit is very much an outcome of the growth. so we hit the great recession, the debt and the deficit goes way up. that's kind of an automatic

function of an economy snapping into gear where the government helps to offset the deep recession. you come out of recession, you start growing again and those things go down. >> josh barrow, one of my favorite columnists, as well as jonathan chait, had a great column in bloomberg in which he talked about the other piece of what i think is a big fraud, arguing that government should behave the way a family behaves. this is what barrow wrote. he wrote overthe lifetime the individual is supposed to be working to pay down debts and bills so he r or she can stop working in old age. government does not have a life cycle. it makes more sense to compare government to a corporation. how, we keep arguing that the government needs to reduce its debt for the reasons that a family would. but that is a bogus argument? >> unfortunately, obama made that a couple of years ago in his speech. one of his great mistakes it gave the republicans a stick to

hit him over the head with. it's the old paradox of thrift. one person starts to save, it may make sense on the individual level. if everybody does it, you get big recession and high unemployment. the deficit has always been a canard. when you're in office, you don't take that much notice of the deficit. it's not number one priority. when you're out of office, it's a way to hit the people who are in office. >> i think that's a good point, lee, it isn't lost on me and i don't think it's lost on many people that when people like paul ryan talk about cutting the deficit. they always want to do so by going after programs they're ideologically opposed to. programs for feeding seniors, feeding children, cutting the department of education. they don't want to cut the deficit, they want to do it to get rid of programs they don't like. >> it's killing two birds with one stone. jared makes a great point. the way things are supposed to work is when we come out of these recessions we're supposed to grow and everything is supposed to get better. that's not happening yet.

not happening yet and we have at the same time the incredible income inch quality issue. whatever you think about the tax cuts, when you have a middle class that doesn't have the economic oomph, that's a numbers problem. we need to get the middle class -- helping the middle class will help the overall growth picture, which will help the debt problem, which is significant, we'll come to a point where the debt is eating into our economy. but not as far as most people think. it is an issue. >> the only time in my, i guess in any of our lifetimes, the only time we actually saw debt as a share of gdp start to come down was when the economy was growing very strongly in the latter '90s and we were achieving full employment. >> what some don't notice is the deficit is -- >> and resulting -- >> 3.5% maybe next year. >> obama has brought the deficit down. >> but with the sharp reduction

in the deficits, which brings me to the point that john made. the democrats in a lot of ways, even the president ceded the notion that you've got to bring down the deficit. there was a notion put forward in the house that i think mirrors what president obama believes in. it had in it $2.1 trillion in stimulus spending to create 7 million jobs, 4.2 trillion in tax hikes, including 49% income tax. all of those things we believe the president is for, but it seems that the white house and a lot of democrats are trending more toward what patty murray did. which is more modest. an equal balance of spending cuts and revenue. why have democrats conceded the point we've got to do sharp deficit reduction. >> i think the cuts is somewhat of an issue in the long run. you want to be increasing the short-term deficit until unemployment comes down. but over the medium to long run the deficit is a little too

high. it's not the catastrophe, that hawks say. but the other thing to say about the 1990s is we have growth and deficits came down. but you also have two big bills under george bush and bill clinton to reduce the deficit and that contributed quite a bit. >> after the break, north dakota is just one of four states that has only one abortion clinic. yet, the sioux state seems to have a fixation with passing even more restrictive abortion legislation. so much so that even republicans are complaining. what's going on in north dakota, next. victor! i got your campbell's chunky soup. mom? who's mom? i'm the giants mascot. eat up! new jammin jerk chicken soup has tasty pieces of chicken with rice and beans. you know the giants don't have a mascot right mom? [ male announcer ] campbell's chunky soup. it fills you up right.

departure. hertz gold plus rewards also offers ereturn-- our fastest way to return your car. just note your mileage and zap ! you're outta there ! we'll e-mail your receipt in a flash, too. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her... no. no! no. ...likes 50% more cash. but i don't give up easy... do you want 50% more cash? yes! yes?! ♪ [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card

gives you 1% cash back on every purchase, plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. ♪ what's in your wallet? why? and we've hit the why phase...

prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. as extreme as this was, this bill was not alone. north dakota has been passing abortion restrictions lately like there's no tomorrow. it passed so many that even the state's republicans are saying it's too much. republicans state representative kathy hawkin writes in the "daily beast" this week that her home state of north dakota is quote poised to win the state-by-state race to the bottom on women's health. coming up to the panel i want to go to lee. what's going on here? i mean you definitely do seem to have an obsession, a singular obsession with republicans, whether it's in congress or at the state level with passing laws that limit and restrict abortion and this is irrespective of the polls saying this is crushing the gop with women. >> this is a terrible precedent here. i mean if this actually goes forward, this is just so anti-women's rights and it also could send us back to the days where women take unhealthy

options when a choice is removed from them to, to make a decision on their own. that could lead to really terrible health consequences as well. we have seen that happen before. and it's just taking that back to their era and removing a decision this is the biggest of big government you can possibly imagine. >> that's the irony, which is the party of small government and individual responsibility. they want the government out of your life in terms of, there's no seat belt law in north dakota that would restrict individual rights, they don't want the government telling you to strap your kid into your car but they tell a woman you have to have a baby. >> i agree with the policy. look at it from their point of view. their point of view is sperm plus egg equals human being. i don't agree with that. but if you think that, then abortion is murder. you can't blame them for caring about it and wanting to stop it. and not seen as a minor piece of liberty. no one must think that government must be so small that you must go around killing people. if you think abortion is killing people, you have a right to

restrict it. >> again this is the issue of the elites versus the base, if it's your religious conviction that abortion is murder, you'll do whatever it takes. if the federal government won't help, you'll do it at the state level. >> the first convention i covered in 1988 the anti-abortionists were outside with pictures of embryos. i think what it shows is the gop, we like to think of it as sort of unified party and are they going to get their act together. it's an alliance of competing and in some sense interest groups and the anti-abortion interest group is always going to be there. i don't think there's much that the guys on top can do about that they're going to get disasters like this. >> it's hurt the party and quickly jared, we have to go, is there something to be learned from sort of the vigorous way that the anti-abortion movement has gone about this, using state-by-state laws to enact their principles? >> i think the only thing to learn is that the republicans kind of charm offensive,

immigration, gay rights, abortion, is, is just a really tough calculation between their base and their elites. and politically, it will continue to hurt them. >> i want to thank the entire panel, jared, john, jonathan and lee and that's all for now, i'll see you back tomorrow at noon eastern when i'm joined by frank brunei, david corn and thomas roberts and you've got to catch alex tonight for a little "now" at night. this evening she'll be joined by cecile richards and david sarota, you can follow the show at "now." and "andrea mitchell reports" is next. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this

with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real.